Douglas Murray: How a Gay Cruise Got Stuck Between Islam and the West ⁠71%

By Douglas Murray⁠84%

7/15/2026, 12:05:36 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Framing Effect, and Anecdotal, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 36.1% saturation with 83 hits. Analysis detected 687 faulty-reasoning hits from 230 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (5,978 of 20,445 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.80% of the article peer group.

Talk about a big gay scandal. 
This week brought news of a gay Virgin cruise ship called 
<em>Scarlet Lady</em>, 
which, by my count, is at least a triple entendre. 
In recent days, the ship was 
barred from docking 
in both Turkey and Egypt. 
To make it even more of a gay hate crime, the 
<em>Scarlet Lady</em> 
was carrying not just 2,000 gay Americans but also Patti LuPone. 
The mainstream media, and what remains of the gay press, swiftly framed this as a pattern-example of anti-LGBT discrimination. 
Indeed, CNN ran the story 
under the headline 
: “Twice-Rejected American Cruise Puts Spotlight on Rollback of LGBTQ Rights, Passengers Say.” 
The story CNN and others ran with was drawn in part from the testimony of one Kyle Olsen, the owner of an LGBT travel company who claimed that the ban reflected a “broader global trend.” 
He added that “We’re seeing a rise in right-wing governments and increasingly conservative political movements, and in many places LGBTQI+ rights are being rolled back as a result.” 
According to Olsen, “The decisions by Turkey and Egypt don’t exist in isolation.” 
The strong insinuation of these reports is that the spurning of 
<em>Scarlet Lady</em> 
is a result of a world in which Donald Trump has been re-elected and right-wing populism is on the march worldwide. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.2%Douglas Murray: 8.4%The FP: 6.1%Confirmation Bias12.2%This article: 4.3%Douglas Murray: 2.5%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias4.3%This article: 7.8%Douglas Murray: 2.0%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.1%Douglas Murray: 2.3%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.2%Douglas Murray: 19.0%The FP: 10.1%Framing Effect25.2%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Douglas Murray: 1.2%The FP: 1.4%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 15.7%Douglas Murray: 5.1%The FP: 10.9%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 2.1%The FP: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 1.4%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.5%Douglas Murray: 4.1%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias16.5%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Douglas Murray: 1.2%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 4.3%The FP: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.2%Douglas Murray: 7.6%The FP: 3.1%Appeal to Authority15.2%This article: 5.7%Douglas Murray: 2.8%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 9.1%Douglas Murray: 2.3%The FP: 0.8%Slippery Slope9.1%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.4%Douglas Murray: 19.5%The FP: 8.8%Hasty Generalization20.4%This article: 4.8%Douglas Murray: 1.2%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring4.8%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.6%Douglas Murray: 2.5%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 1.4%The FP: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 26.1%Douglas Murray: 14.9%The FP: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.1%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.8%Douglas Murray: 1.2%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof4.8%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.5%Douglas Murray: 11.1%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal23.5%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%Douglas Murray: 2.5%The FP: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.2%Douglas Murray: 3.0%The FP: 2.3%Unattributed Quote12.2%This article: 4.8%Douglas Murray: 2.6%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 36.1%Douglas Murray: 26.3%The FP: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice36.1%This article: 5.7%Douglas Murray: 1.4%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination5.7%This article: 8.3%Douglas Murray: 2.1%The FP: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.3%This article: 9.1%Douglas Murray: 11.7%The FP: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Douglas Murray: 0.0%The FP: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

230 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers29%attributed speech163writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Douglas Murray • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageCNN • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageKyle Olsen • 28 words • 100.0% coverageKyle Olsen • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Douglas Murray

100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words19% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+57.1 ptsWriter: 42.9%Douglas Murray: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%Douglas Murray: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Douglas Murray: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Douglas Murray: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.